Mr. Terence O'Shea:

I am speaking on behalf of the Independent Licensed Merchants Association. I am a licensed merchant in that I operate two licensed merchant premises. Both are registered with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and I am also a responsible person. I have been in the industry for 38 years. When I set out first, I never thought I would appear before an Oireachtas committee in the hope of saving my business, which I have worked hard to establish over a number of years.

I will answer Deputy Nolan's question on earning a living in my profession as a responsible person. The Deputy asked if I would be affected and the answer is that I and licensed merchants in general would be. We have no doubt that job losses and the potential for business closures will be a consequence if the Department fails to avail of the derogation as provided for in Article 105(4). There is a responsibility on elected representatives, appointed Ministers and public servants to promote enterprise and employment. Any regulation, directive or legislation that fails to promote these objectives should not be enacted. If the Department proceeds to introduce the legislation, it will result in job losses and business closures. Many merchants such as myself are dependent on anti-parasitic medicines as our primary source of income and we will be forced to close. Others who offer a wider range of essential farm products will exit the industry, resulting in large-scale job losses. Multi-site merchants will find some locations unviable and will close. The important thing in all of this is that the chief veterinary officer, Dr. Martin Blake, has made quite clear in his letter to Europe that he sees issues arising with competitiveness in the marketplace if some of the existing outlets are forced to close.

It is important to draw the attention of the committee to EU Directive No. 2019/633 on anti-competitive and unfair trading practices in the agricultural and food supply chain. This directive will prohibit unfair trading practices being imposed on one trading partner by another. This was adopted on 17 April 2019 and is legally binding on all EU states. The emphasis is that as of now and as late as yesterday, I had a licensed merchant in touch with me who said his turnover in the past six weeks was affected to the tune of €32,000 because a number of his farmer clients were unable to secure prescriptions from a veterinary practice that had moved into the area and that was involved in the sale of veterinary medicines. It was making it quite clear to the farmer that it had a product on the shelf, it was providing the prescription and that is where the farmer should have been purchasing his products. The retention of veterinary prescriptions, which a farmer client is legally entitled to for a sole economic reason, will be in breach of this new EU Directive No. 2019/633. Can we introduce legislation which will encourage this malpractice? I would describe what is happening with the retention of prescriptions as a malpractice. It exists and people who do it are already in breach of SI 786 of 2007. We are proposing to introduce new legislation which will encourage this and that in turn will clearly be contrary to the provisions of EU Directive No. 2019/633.